I wouldn't say China has been making no effort. They are producing massive amounts of solar panels.

Now granted a significant chunk of the polysilicon is manufactured using Uyghur forced...

Their biggest problem was leaders gutting the company to pump up the stock price. Had Sears not sold off Craftsman Tools to Stanley/Black & Decker, that could have continued to provide revenue to help keep the company afloat. And if you look far enough back, you could say the same about Dean Witter/Discover Cards, Allstate Insurance, and probably others.

And their OSH division foolishly borrowed money to pay a dividend to stockholders, resulting in that division being so deeply in debt that by the time Sears spun it off, the company filed for bankruptcy after only 17 months.

Owning real estate was the least of their problems, though it did make it harder to exit markets when things got bad.

I'm going to say it ... I'm going to do it ... here it comes ... enshitification!

Shame on the feds for letting companies get this point in the first place. If our government had teeth and the fines/punishments weren't so laughably small when they do get called out we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Go after ALL these large asshat companies doing the same thing. Hold the C-suite PERSONALLY accountable as well when laws are broken.

It's just too easy for something to go wrong at work and jeopardize your job, especially in today's victimhood environment...especially if you're talking women here and you are a guy.

This is the most hilariously amazing bullshit I think I've ever heard.

Actually right now I've got a friend visiting for a week, and she'll be joined by another mutual friend who will stay for a few days. I met both of them at work years ago. If I'd followed your advice I'd be missing out on some awesome friendships.

not going drinking with co-workers outside of a job sanctioned event, and even then, not staying long or getting tipsy.

I've definitely got smashed with co workers before. Korean BBQ and soju is a whole thing. Also just the pub. I like the pub.

But I guess some people mix the two more than they should

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like uh, your opinion, man.

I go to work for one thing....money.

Life's too short to waste that much of it on merely money.

Might want to ride that urban transportation a bit more before you assume about safety.

Many cities manage nice, safe late night urban transportation. I live in London and have come back late quite a few times in my time.

I mean the OP is a troll or an idiot or sarcastic, but it's impossible to tell, but "we've always been shit at public transportation" probably isn't a reason to continue to be so.

I don't think being more cautious turning would have helped at all. The cyclist goes full speed into the rear quarter of the car, so moving more slowly would only have made him hit the front instead.

The cyclist may have been able to swerve. Nonetheless moving that far, that fast with that level of visibility was not a good move.

As a driver, if I could see traffic in the next lane over had stopped, I would at the very least slow down and pay attention to the road.

It's far more likely than not that the cyclist had exactly that training already. But no, that's not how people drive round these parts. If there are multiple queues of traffic it would not be outrageous for one queue to be stopped and another to be moving at 15 mph.

There were however plenty of warning signs that the cyclist was completely oblivious to.

Nonetheless, you claimed it was entirely the cyclists fault.

The only way the driver could have avoided it would be to sit there blocking traffic coming the other way indefinitely

If the choice is between an unsafe maneuver and holding up traffic, the choice is always the former. If the driver had done the same and got t-boned by a car he couldn't see moving up an inside lane, everyone would have called the guy an idiot.

It's a really clear case IMHO.

I don't see how with a badly designed road, and a driver moving when he couldn't see it was safe you can clearly assume it's 100% the fault of the cyclist. Sounds to me that the fault is split three ways.

Wow that solves all of my problems—except that does not work well collaboratively in groups like when multiple people have to make edits and the whole team has to see them. Also Slack is completely E2EE so anything that is sent should is protected, right? No? Hmmm it is like a messaging app does not meet all the needs of collaboration. It is like Office collaboration features works best in Office.

That is a boatload of assumptions about people with whom you have probably never had a conversation. I have spoken people who left Dell during the recent shift. A few of them have over a dozen years with Dell. This was the major reason: when they hired, the understanding was they would be mostly remote. Because of this they built their lives not anywhere near a Dell office. Being forced to go into the office means long commutes which might involve flights. Or they could quit as is their right. Somehow you determined that decision selfish.

I see in your thought processes are completely binary. There appears to be no room for other viewpoints. The people I know were there during the low points of Dell; they were there when Dell went private. Without knowing their circumstances, you questioned their loyalty. For them, this last change was simply a bridge too far. The main factor you seem to ignore is that no one owes a company their loyalty especially when company does not show any loyalty to their employees.

There is no way the car could see that cyclist coming due to the bend.

Then he should have been turning more cautiously. This is a basic part of driver training.

As a driver you are trained to recognize dangerous situations like that, where you may not be seen, and act accordingly.

You are essentially suggesting the cyclist is untrained. 80% of cyclists hold driving licenses and that number rises with wealth. That chap had a very fancy bike. It's pretty likely he also has a driving license.

That guy didn't even slow down, and appeared to be distracted by his phone.

You appear to be assigning blame as a completely discreet thing. It must be entirely the cyclist's fault or entirely the driver's fault. This is flawed thinking. The cyclist doing things he should not does not mean that the driver also did not. Or...

If it had been two full sized cars then it would have needed traffic lights.

OK, you are flat out factually wrong here. Here's an example of a turn across 3 lanes with no traffic lights:

https://www.google.com/maps/@5...

These exist all over the place in London. But even if you weren't wrong there you're still wrong because you both blaming the council for a dangerously designed road and then entirely blaming the cyclists.

Then there's blame to be shared at least 3 ways here. Assigning it all to the cyclists and then ragging on Jeremy Vine is bogus.

but since it's not currently a legal requirement the cyclists need to be aware and account for it.

But not drivers? WTF!

If it's there on the roads then drivers must be aware of it. You cannot reasonably blame only one road user for being unaware of the rules.

In my area, the light rail's top speed is 55 mph, slower than a bus on a freeway. So I don't think it's worth the cost.

The idea is that the light rail would only go back and forth along maybe a one to two mile stretch near major stations. You'd only be on them for maybe three or four minutes before transferring to a faster train.

Also, you're assuming that the freeway is actually running at 55 MPH. And also, you're probably assuming a surface light rail, which is why they run at slow speeds. The actual light rail train hardware can typically go 65-ish on grade-separated rails.

Sorry dad.

I think you underestimate just how slow buses are. All your proposal will do is massively slow down cars and make life miserable for everyone. Stopping for other cars isn't what makes buses slow, but rather stopping four or five times per mile to pick up and drop off passengers. Even if you manage to get that down to 20 seconds per stop, that's still 1.6 minutes per mile, meaning that even if the bus moved at the speed of light in between stops, it would *still* only achieve an average speed of 38 MPH. So the only way you get decent speed is if they skip most of the stops because nobody is riding the bus.

The only way for buses to be viable speed-wise is if they don't make any stops, and the only way for them to be viable customer-wise is if they make a lot of stops. These two design constraints are at odds with one another and make most public transit systems a poor substitute for cars unless your road system is so clogged that cars can't move.

If you really want a system that can compete with cars, you need to start by having three (or more) train tracks in parallel, both underground or above grade. You then need to run a light rail on one with four or five stops per mile, bouncing back and forth between about three or four adjacent stops, and a high-speed rail on the other stopping at specific stations for transferring to the light rail. That way, the majority of your route is an express train, and you only stop at every stop near both endpoints.

And even that only works efficiently in a straight line. As soon as you're talking about the places people actually want to go, it breaks down, and if you need cars or buses at both ends, trains become a lot less effective.

You could *maybe* do something similar with buses, but it would be harder, because buses can't just suddenly start driving in reverse.

Maybe Meta needs an AI powered leader to help curb this silliness.

Ok, go easy on me guys. I was half-heartedly joking in my post. The last thing I want is a bunch of angry farmers coming at me with pitch forks! (Are pitch forks still a thing?)